Mohinder Singh v. The Addl Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Mohinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 66. 4.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Team D, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 22.10.2022 in Memo No.383/BCDFGISSSV/2022 against the petitioner's daughter Nisha @ Nithi, female, aged 23 years, D/o.Mohinder Singh, who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.
Page Nos.1/12
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by father of detenue assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 22.10.2022 bearing reference No.383/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2.
Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Cyber Law Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(bb) of Act 14 of 1982.
Page Nos.2/12
3.
There is one adverse case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned detention order is Cyber Crime Police Division - I Crime No.92 of 2022 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 384, 469, 506(i) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 66 r/w 43(i) and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4.
Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5.
Though very many grounds have been raised in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing projected his argument in his challenge against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that the entire index of the grounds booklet i.e., five pages (122 documents) running to 674 pages is in Tamil. A scanned reproduction of the index pages of the grounds booklet is as follows:
Page Nos.3/12
Page Nos.4/12
Page Nos.5/12
Page Nos.6/12
Page Nos.7/12
6.
As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.
Page Nos.8/12
7.
Be that as it may we are informed that the detenue discontinued her Under Graduate degree. There is no disputation that the detenue is conversant only with English and Hindi. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The question which the Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court addressed itself to in a similar fact situation is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read as follows:
'6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. ' Page Nos.9/12
8.
Applying Powanammal principle, we have no hesitation in saying that the impugned detention order in the case on hand deserves to be dislodged.
9.
Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 22.10.2022 bearing reference No.383/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenue Ms.Nisha @ Nithi, aged 23 years, daughter of Thiru.Mohinder Singh is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 26.06.2023 Index : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai. To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Page Nos.10/12
Secretariat, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Team D, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.11/12
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mmi 26.06.2023 Page Nos.12/12